WO235/1114
Dublin Core
Title
WO235/1114
Description
Committing a War Crime
“in that he on the High Seas, on the 1st and 2nd October 1942, when Master of the Military Transport S.S. “LISBON MARU” and as such responsible for the lives and safety of about 1800 British Prisoners of War on board the said transport when it had been torpedoed and was in a sinking condition, in violation of the laws and usages of war, was concerned (a) in the battening down of the P.O.W. aforesaid in the ships hold whereby many died of suffocation and many underwent mental and physical sufferings and many others were trapped and drowned when the ship sank and (b) in his failure to provide for the use of the P.O.W. available boats and life jackets as a result many of them were drowned after the ship had sunk and many more underwent mental and physical sufferings.”
“in that he on the High Seas, on the 1st and 2nd October 1942, when Master of the Military Transport S.S. “LISBON MARU” and as such responsible for the lives and safety of about 1800 British Prisoners of War on board the said transport when it had been torpedoed and was in a sinking condition, in violation of the laws and usages of war, was concerned (a) in the battening down of the P.O.W. aforesaid in the ships hold whereby many died of suffocation and many underwent mental and physical sufferings and many others were trapped and drowned when the ship sank and (b) in his failure to provide for the use of the P.O.W. available boats and life jackets as a result many of them were drowned after the ship had sunk and many more underwent mental and physical sufferings.”
Legal Case Item Type Metadata
Case No.
WO235/1114
Accused
Kyoda Shigeru
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 5
Charge
Committing a War Crime
“in that he on the High Seas, on the 1st and 2nd October 1942, when Master of the Military Transport S.S. “LISBON MARU” and as such responsible for the lives and safety of about 1800 British Prisoners of War on board the said transport when it had been torpedoed and was in a sinking condition, in violation of the laws and usages of war, was concerned (a) in the battening down of the P.O.W. aforesaid in the ships hold whereby many died of suffocation and many underwent mental and physical sufferings and many others were trapped and drowned when the ship sank and (b) in his failure to provide for the use of the P.O.W. available boats and life jackets as a result many of them were drowned after the ship had sunk and many more underwent mental and physical sufferings.”
“in that he on the High Seas, on the 1st and 2nd October 1942, when Master of the Military Transport S.S. “LISBON MARU” and as such responsible for the lives and safety of about 1800 British Prisoners of War on board the said transport when it had been torpedoed and was in a sinking condition, in violation of the laws and usages of war, was concerned (a) in the battening down of the P.O.W. aforesaid in the ships hold whereby many died of suffocation and many underwent mental and physical sufferings and many others were trapped and drowned when the ship sank and (b) in his failure to provide for the use of the P.O.W. available boats and life jackets as a result many of them were drowned after the ship had sunk and many more underwent mental and physical sufferings.”
Background
The Accused was a civilian, the Master of the S.S. “Lisbon Maru”. He was in the service of the Imperial Japanese Army, attached 1/5 Cdo, (Lt.). As the Judge Advocate described the situation, Lt. Sugiyama was the senior Army officer on board and accordingly was the officer commanding troops in transit. The officer in charge of the POW draft was Lt. Wada. The vessel was under requisition by the Army. The status of the Accused was that of a civilian attached to the Army.
On 1 October 1942, the Lisbon Maru was on the High Seas en route from Hong Kong to Japan, carrying 1816 British POWs, 778 Japanese troops and other passengers and 1676 tons of freight.
On 1 October 1942, the Lisbon Maru was on the High Seas en route from Hong Kong to Japan, carrying 1816 British POWs, 778 Japanese troops and other passengers and 1676 tons of freight.
Allegations
At 0710 hours on 1 October 1942, the Lisbon Maru was struck by torpedoes fired by an Allied destroyer, which tore a hole in her stern. Lt. Wada ordered the POWs to remain in their holds, and sick POWs, who had been on deck, were taken in the No. 1 and No. 2 holds.
The water started to enter the Lisbon Maru.
Most of the Japanese on board were transferred to other Japanese vessels that had arrived on the scene, at 1720 hours and between 1840 and 2000 hours. Only the ship’s officers and crew, Lt. Sugiyama, Lt. Wada, 26 guards for the POWs and the POWs themselves were left on board. The Lisbon Maru was towed onto a sandbank with the object of beaching her
The hatches in the holds where the POWs were held were then closed at 2100 hours. The ventilation was clearly inadequate for the number of men there. During the night, conditions deteriorated. A few men fainted due to lack of fresh air, stench and heat. No food or water was provided to them (their last meal was on the evening of 30 September 1942). Messages were passed between the holds where the POWs were kept.
The next morning, sometime after 0800 hours, a few POWs succeeded in breaking out from No. 2 hold, and opened a steel bulkhead door leading to No. 4 hold. They were fired at by the Japanese guards and the POWs retreated into the holds.
At 0855, Lt. Sugiyama, Lt. Wada, the 26 POW guards and the ship’s officers abandoned ship. At about this time, the POWs came out of the holds. Some POWs jumped into the water and some remained on board until the ship sank. Some allegedly drowned in the sea. The ship had set sail without adequate life-vests (the Judge Advocate observed that the Prosecution acknowledged that the Accused had protested to the Embarkation Office at Hong Kong that the boats and rafts provided inadequate accommodation, but despite that the ship was passed by the Inspector of Shipping and he received his orders to sail and he sailed accordingly).
The water started to enter the Lisbon Maru.
Most of the Japanese on board were transferred to other Japanese vessels that had arrived on the scene, at 1720 hours and between 1840 and 2000 hours. Only the ship’s officers and crew, Lt. Sugiyama, Lt. Wada, 26 guards for the POWs and the POWs themselves were left on board. The Lisbon Maru was towed onto a sandbank with the object of beaching her
The hatches in the holds where the POWs were held were then closed at 2100 hours. The ventilation was clearly inadequate for the number of men there. During the night, conditions deteriorated. A few men fainted due to lack of fresh air, stench and heat. No food or water was provided to them (their last meal was on the evening of 30 September 1942). Messages were passed between the holds where the POWs were kept.
The next morning, sometime after 0800 hours, a few POWs succeeded in breaking out from No. 2 hold, and opened a steel bulkhead door leading to No. 4 hold. They were fired at by the Japanese guards and the POWs retreated into the holds.
At 0855, Lt. Sugiyama, Lt. Wada, the 26 POW guards and the ship’s officers abandoned ship. At about this time, the POWs came out of the holds. Some POWs jumped into the water and some remained on board until the ship sank. Some allegedly drowned in the sea. The ship had set sail without adequate life-vests (the Judge Advocate observed that the Prosecution acknowledged that the Accused had protested to the Embarkation Office at Hong Kong that the boats and rafts provided inadequate accommodation, but despite that the ship was passed by the Inspector of Shipping and he received his orders to sail and he sailed accordingly).
Defence
The Defence was based mainly on the status of the Accused as a civilian, and the limited scope of the authority and responsibility that he had. He claimed that as a civilian, he had no authority to issue orders to Japanese Army personnel on board. Although he could tender advice, but he was bound to obey orders issued to him by army officers.
The Accused argued that when he got Lt. Wada’s order to close the hatches in order to prevent attempt to escape or violence by the POWs, he actually protested on the grounds of lack of ventilation and danger to the lives of the POWs. He claimed he succeeded at first, but after a few hours, Lt. Wada approached him again with Lt. Sugiyama, giving a firm order to close the hatches. He could only conform to the order.
The Accused asserted that at 0845 hours, when he passed the orders to abandon ship to Lt. Wada, he specifically requested him to have the POWs brought out of the holds. Five minutes later, he saw the POWs emerging from the holds and jumping into the sea. The officers and crew abandoned ship a little after 0900 hours. The Accused stated that he tried to go down with his ship by tying himself to a stanchion. After submerging for 30 seconds that part of the ship came to the surface again, so he gave up the attempt. He went up to the boat deck and helped some POWs to launch the only boat then available and then urged other POWs to jump into the sea, but some were reluctant.
He concluded that the other ships standing by were rescuing Japanese personnel first. At 0940 hours, he jumped into the sea.
The Accused argued that when he got Lt. Wada’s order to close the hatches in order to prevent attempt to escape or violence by the POWs, he actually protested on the grounds of lack of ventilation and danger to the lives of the POWs. He claimed he succeeded at first, but after a few hours, Lt. Wada approached him again with Lt. Sugiyama, giving a firm order to close the hatches. He could only conform to the order.
The Accused asserted that at 0845 hours, when he passed the orders to abandon ship to Lt. Wada, he specifically requested him to have the POWs brought out of the holds. Five minutes later, he saw the POWs emerging from the holds and jumping into the sea. The officers and crew abandoned ship a little after 0900 hours. The Accused stated that he tried to go down with his ship by tying himself to a stanchion. After submerging for 30 seconds that part of the ship came to the surface again, so he gave up the attempt. He went up to the boat deck and helped some POWs to launch the only boat then available and then urged other POWs to jump into the sea, but some were reluctant.
He concluded that the other ships standing by were rescuing Japanese personnel first. At 0940 hours, he jumped into the sea.
Prosecutor
Maj. P.A.L. Vine, R.M
Defence Counsel
Mr Takashashi Mikio (Japanese Barrister) and Mr Nibun Yurito (Japanese Barrister)
Judges
President: Lt.Col. R.C. Laming, Barrister (Dept. of the JAG India)
Members: Lt.Cmdr. J. De G. Lamotte, R.N; Major J.T. Loranger (JAG Branch, Canadian Army)
Members: Lt.Cmdr. J. De G. Lamotte, R.N; Major J.T. Loranger (JAG Branch, Canadian Army)
Advisory Officer
2nd/ Lt. G.L. Falkoff (the Buffs)
Prosecution Witnesses
Major Y.H. Chan (Major)
S.J. Chen (Sergeant)
Major J.T.N Cross (Major)
Captain F.V. Collison (Captain)
Major Vine (Major)
Captain Yokota Minoru (Captain)
Imamura Ichiro (Paymaster Lieutenant-Commander)
H.M. Howell (Businessman)
Araki Kaname (Second Mate of the Lisbon Maru)
A.J.W. Evans (Manager of British Cigarette Company)
Joseph Hill (Crown Sergeant)
F.K. Garton (Wireless Engineer of Government)
G.C. Hamilton (Lieutenant)
Euchi Makita (Interpreter)
G.D.A. Gregory (Commander)
Defence Witnesses
Kyoda Shigeru (Civilian)
Niimori Genichiro (Interpreter)
Ando Tadashi (Major)
Higuchi Keichiro (Lieutenant-General)
Sasaki Yoichi (Court Interpreter)
Court Witnesses
T Ellis, RN (Commander)
Takahashi Mikio (Defence Lawyer)
Kiichi Makita (Court Interpreter)
Hiyama Seinoshin (Seaman)
Trial Dates
1946-10-23
1946-10-24
1946-10-25
1946-10-26
1946-10-28
1946-10-29
1946-10-30
1946-10-31
1946-11-01
1946-11-02
1946-11-04
1946-11-05
1946-11-08
1946-11-13
1946-11-14
1946-11-15
1946-11-16
1946-11-18
1946-11-19
1946-11-20
1946-11-21
1946-11-22
1946-11-28
1946-11-29
Judgement Date
1946-11-29
Judgement Confirmation Date
1947-02-18
Judgement Promulgation Date
1947-02-19
Judgement
Guilty except that the court found that two and not “many” POW died in the ship’s holds from the effects of the conditions in No. 1 hold and their already weakened state, and not from suffocation; that others and not “many others” were trapped and drowned when the ship sank, and except for the words “and in his failure to provide for the use of the POW available lifeboats and lifejackets, as a result many of them were drowned when the ship sank and many more underwent mental and physical sufferings.”
Petition
There is no record of a Petition on the file.
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate [FGT Davis, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces, 11 February 1947] made the following observations.
“The only direct evidence of any deaths during the night was the statement of PW10 that two named persons died in No.1 hold; those two persons were suffering at the time from beri-beri (pp.143-4 of the proceedings).”
“All the POWs in Nos.1, 2 and 3 holds succeeded in coming up on deck before the ship sank (except the two who had died in No.1 hold during the night) but there was evidence that some P.O.W. were drowned in No. 4 hold. It is not clear exactly when the accused abandoned ship. According to a report he prepared immediately after the incident, (which was put in as evidence for the prosecution), it was at 0940 hours; the evidence of P.O.W. was that they did not notice him and that the ship appeared deserted when they emerged from the holds on the second occasion.”
“Life saving gear on board the “Lisbon Maru” consisted of 4 life-boats, 2 small “sampans”, 6 rafts and 2700 life jackets. The accused had protested to the Embarkation Office, Hong Kong, that the boats and rafts provided inadequate accommodation, but despite that the ship was passed by the Inspector of Shipping and he received his orders to sail and he sailed accordingly.”
For the Defence, the Judge Advocate noted that evidence was adduced “to the effect that a civilian master of a Japanese troopship under Army requisition had no authority to issue any orders to Japanese Army personnel on board his ship, though he could tender advice; that he was bound to obey orders issued to him by army officers acting in the course of their duty and concerning matters within the scope of his own duties; and that the Army officer commanding troops in transit had considerable authority and responsibility on board a troopship, having exclusive jurisdiction in the following matter, inter alia, so far as his troops were concerned:-
(a) issue of rations
(b) sanitation
(c) safety precautions while in transit
(d) distribution and use of life-jackets, life-boats and other life saving gear.
(e) abandoning ship in case of necessity”.
In relation to the sentence, the Judge Advocate observed that the defence of the Accused to the charge of battening down the hatches “was in effect that of obedience to superior orders”. “But such obedience is not a valid defence where the order is obviously unlawful. In this case the accused knew what consequence would result from closing the hatches and those consequences constituted a violation of laws and usages of war.”
“In regard to that part of the special finding that two and not many P.O.W. died in the ship’s holds from the effects of the No. 1 hold in their already weakened state and not from suffocation, the evidence shows that the two men concerned were suffering from beri-beri. Since the immediate cause of death was not established in either case, a more accurate finding would have been that their deaths were contributed to by the conditions in No.1 hold, but I think that is really what the court mean and I advise confirmation.”
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate [FGT Davis, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces, 11 February 1947] made the following observations.
“The only direct evidence of any deaths during the night was the statement of PW10 that two named persons died in No.1 hold; those two persons were suffering at the time from beri-beri (pp.143-4 of the proceedings).”
“All the POWs in Nos.1, 2 and 3 holds succeeded in coming up on deck before the ship sank (except the two who had died in No.1 hold during the night) but there was evidence that some P.O.W. were drowned in No. 4 hold. It is not clear exactly when the accused abandoned ship. According to a report he prepared immediately after the incident, (which was put in as evidence for the prosecution), it was at 0940 hours; the evidence of P.O.W. was that they did not notice him and that the ship appeared deserted when they emerged from the holds on the second occasion.”
“Life saving gear on board the “Lisbon Maru” consisted of 4 life-boats, 2 small “sampans”, 6 rafts and 2700 life jackets. The accused had protested to the Embarkation Office, Hong Kong, that the boats and rafts provided inadequate accommodation, but despite that the ship was passed by the Inspector of Shipping and he received his orders to sail and he sailed accordingly.”
For the Defence, the Judge Advocate noted that evidence was adduced “to the effect that a civilian master of a Japanese troopship under Army requisition had no authority to issue any orders to Japanese Army personnel on board his ship, though he could tender advice; that he was bound to obey orders issued to him by army officers acting in the course of their duty and concerning matters within the scope of his own duties; and that the Army officer commanding troops in transit had considerable authority and responsibility on board a troopship, having exclusive jurisdiction in the following matter, inter alia, so far as his troops were concerned:-
(a) issue of rations
(b) sanitation
(c) safety precautions while in transit
(d) distribution and use of life-jackets, life-boats and other life saving gear.
(e) abandoning ship in case of necessity”.
In relation to the sentence, the Judge Advocate observed that the defence of the Accused to the charge of battening down the hatches “was in effect that of obedience to superior orders”. “But such obedience is not a valid defence where the order is obviously unlawful. In this case the accused knew what consequence would result from closing the hatches and those consequences constituted a violation of laws and usages of war.”
“In regard to that part of the special finding that two and not many P.O.W. died in the ship’s holds from the effects of the No. 1 hold in their already weakened state and not from suffocation, the evidence shows that the two men concerned were suffering from beri-beri. Since the immediate cause of death was not established in either case, a more accurate finding would have been that their deaths were contributed to by the conditions in No.1 hold, but I think that is really what the court mean and I advise confirmation.”
Sentence Imposed
7 years imprisonment
Keywords
High Seas; Lisbon Maru; Civilian Captain; Imperial Japanese Army; Prisoners of War; Transport of Prisoners of War; “concerned in”; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Unlawful killing; Ordered; Superior Orders; War Crimes; Violations of the laws and customs of war; Scope of responsibilities; Mitigating circumstances
Remarks
The Judge Advocate’s report about the trial is unusually detailed.
Link to the trial of the interpreter on the Lisbon Maru, Niimori Genichiro, Case No. WO/235/892.
See the account of Mr. Peter Vine and the extract from Mr. Tony Banham’s book The Sinking of the Lisbon Maru at the Hong Kong’s War Crimes Trials section of the website.
Link to the trial of the interpreter on the Lisbon Maru, Niimori Genichiro, Case No. WO/235/892.
See the account of Mr. Peter Vine and the extract from Mr. Tony Banham’s book The Sinking of the Lisbon Maru at the Hong Kong’s War Crimes Trials section of the website.
Files
Collection
Citation
“WO235/1114,” Hong Kong's War Crimes Trials Collection, accessed December 23, 2024, https://hkwctc.lib.hku.hk/items/show/84.
Geolocation
This item has no location info associated with it.
Hello World, hello